Juntos
Updates on Antitrust and Competition Enforcement in Latin AmericaArgentina
Brazil
Chile
Mexico
Gas and diesel retailers fined for failure to notify deals. In May, Mexico’s competition authority (COFECE) fined six gasoline and diesel retailers a collective total of USD3.4 million for failing to notify two transactions. These are the first fines in COFECE’s history for failing to notify transactions subject to mandatory merger control processes. In Mexico, as in the other jurisdictions, companies are required to conduct their own analyses of whether transactions meet relevant thresholds.
Mexico threatens to break up vertical monopolies in the bus transportation sector. In May 2024, after a market study flagged multiple competition concerns, COFECE threatened to force divestitures in the bus transportation industry. COFECE argued that vertical relationships in this industry increase barriers to entry for new competitors and entrench incumbents. In addition, major bus carriers were alleged to have horizontal relationships such as partnerships, joint ventures, and interlocking directorates, according to the preliminary report. The report also suggested the relaxation of regulations requiring bus operators to use passenger terminals, which would allow passengers to be picked up outside of established terminals and increase market differentiation.
Peru
Peru’s INDECOPI blocks a business combination for the first time. For the first time in Peru’s history of antitrust enforcement, in July 2024, a Peru’s National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) rejected a proposed business combination. INDECOPI said that the transaction, a proposed acquisition in the sugar industry, would have a negative impact on the country’s markets for wholesale sugar cane acquisition and domestic sugar commercialization. In blocking the acquisition, INDECOPI found that the proposed acquirer proposed insufficient commitments to mitigate the potential anticompetitive impact of the transaction. Enforcers throughout the world have become more skeptical of so-called behavioral remedies that would prohibit specific practices and require government oversight. Acceptance of these kinds of commitments to allay competitive concerns is now rare, especially in the US.
The Commission for the Defense of Competition adopted INDECOPI’s decision. As such, INDECOPI’s Chamber for the Defense of Competition may appeal it. More information on INDECOPI’s decision can be found in their press release.
INDECOPI launches investigation into pharmaceutical market. In July 2024, INDECOPI initiated an administrative sanctioning procedure against 15 entities – most medical laboratories and drug distributors – and five individuals for their participation in an alleged cartel aimed at coordinating proposals and abstentions in auctions by the Ministry of Health and the Peruvian National Social Insurance (ESSALUD) to win bids for the purchase of medicines for both institutions. Generally known as bid-rigging, the practice can carry criminal penalties in some jurisdictions. According to INDECOPI, the cartel distorted competition and prevented several medicines from being acquired by the Peruvian State at lower prices.
United States
DOJ and state attorneys general sue software maker for antitrust violations related to its AI-driven product. In a first-of-its-kind enforcement action, an August 2024 lawsuit against RealPage, Inc. by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and multiple state attorneys general alleges that the company’s pricing algorithms and AI-driven software for commercial residential landlords facilitate unlawful information sharing between landlords, leading to higher prices for renters, in violation of federal antitrust law. The enforcers further allege that RealPage unlawfully monopolized the market for commercial revenue management software for multifamily housing rentals by “amassing a massive reservoir of competitively sensitive data” from customers and using its “self-reinforcing data and scale advantages,” to the exclusion of potential rival software providers. This is the first time that the DOJ will litigate claims based on so-called “algorithmic collusion,” and the case stands as a potential bellwether for government enforcement against the use of algorithm- and AI-driven pricing tools.